Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Nationwide injunctions
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 15:53:25 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <103prp3$147pt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103pknh$129f7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 00:53:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8c9ec48e6a8030783235d95b74f6cc4";
	logging-data="1187645"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bLxCtiaQpOhjUxJ80fOjp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PFhr52gVkAb2pkaqFXtsWxxeuOY=
In-Reply-To: <103pknh$129f7$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/28/2025 1:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
> 
> Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
> don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
> file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
> 
> I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
> equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
> case after case after case.
> 
And Republicans try to get their cases heard in Texas because the judges 
there are the most friendly to them.

> However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
> government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
> remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
> authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
> Congress would have to fix that.
> 
> By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
> too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
> 
> I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
> there is court jurisdiction for that.
> 
> The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
> heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
> courts, Trump will win on the merits.
> 
> https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/


-- 
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky 
dirty old man.